Pecan tree named &#39;Ga. 00-7-75&#39;

ABSTRACT

A pecan tree distinguished by the following unique combination of characteristics: Large nut size, good kernel quality, moderately early harvest date, and excellent resistance to the scab fungus (Fusicladosporium effusum).

Latin name of the genus and species of the plant: Carya illinoinensis.

Variety denomination: ‘Ga. 00-7-75’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In 2000 the cross of ‘Barton’ x ‘Gloria Grande’ was made by Patrick Conner at the University of Georgia-Tifton Campus. ‘Barton’ is a 1953 USDA release which is notable for a thin shell, early harvest, and strong resistance to pecan scab [Fusicladium effusum (syn. Cladosporium caryigenum)]. ‘Gloria Grande’ is a selection from Orangeburg, S.C. with unknown parentage. ‘Gloria Grande’ was recommended for planting in Georgia for many years because of its stable and high yields and strong resistance to pecan scab. ‘Barton’ and ‘Gloria Grande’ are both unpatented cultivars. 141 nuts were collected from this cross and they produced 79 seedlings. These seedlings were grown in a seedling nursery for two years and then they were planted for observation into a seedling orchard at a farm in Tift County, Ga. One of these seedlings is identified by the cultivar name ‘Ga. 00-7-75’. ‘Ga. 00-7-75’, a tree produced from one of the nuts of this cross, first fruited in 2007, and has fruited every year since. ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ was selected for trial in 2009 because of its lack of scab infection, large nut size, good kernel quality, and moderately early harvest.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is distinguished from other pecan varieties known to the inventor due to the following unique combination of characteristics: Large nut size, good kernel quality, moderately early harvest date, and excellent resistance to the scab fungus.

Asexual reproduction of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ by grafting (top working) onto ‘Headquarters’ (unpatented) pecan trees in 2009 to 2012 at Tifton, Ga. and whip grafting pecan seedlings at Ray City, Albany, and Attapulgus, Ga. was performed in order to evaluate these trees. Asexual reproduction of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ has shown that the forgoing unique combination of characteristics come true to form, are firmly fixed, and are established and transmitted through succeeding propagations.

Certain characteristics of this variety, such as growth and color, may change with changing environmental conditions (e.g., light, temperature, moisture, nutrient availability, or other factors). Color descriptions and other terminology are used in accordance with their ordinary dictionary descriptions, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Color designations are made with reference to The Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S.) Colour Chart, 2005. The color characteristics of this type may vary with lighting and other conditions. Therefore, color characteristics of this new variety should be determined with reference to the observations described herein, rather than from these illustrations alone.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a pollination chart showing the timing of pollen shed and stigma receptivity of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ in comparison to several other pecan cultivars grown in Tifton, Ga.

FIG. 2 is a photograph showing the form and color of the stigma of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’.

FIG. 3 is a photograph showing the nut shucks and nut of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ nuts.

FIG. 4 is a photograph showing nut shape and kernel characteristics of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ (center) in comparison to ‘Desirable’ (top) and ‘Stuart’ (bottom).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

-   Botanical: The following detailed description of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is     based on observations of the original tree growing in Tifton, Ga.     and of asexually reproduced progeny growing in Tifton, Ray City,     Albany, and Attapulgus, Ga.     -   -   Varietal name.—‘Ga. 00-7-75’.         -   Parentage.—Seed parent: ‘Gloria Grande’. Pollen parent:             ‘Barton’.         -   Description of plant material.—         -   Tree.—‘Ga. 00-7-75’ trees are vigorous with an upright             growing canopy. Trunks are scaly and brown in color (RHS             N200C). Leaves are dark green (RHS 137A) on the adaxial side             and lighter in color on the abaxial side (RHS 137C). Leaf             and leaflet size and shape vary within the canopy and are             not suitable for cultivar identification.         -   Flower.—‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is protogynous in flowering (type II)             with midseason receptivity and mid to late season pollen             shed (FIG. 1). It would be pollinated by ‘Byrd’ (U.S. Plant             Pat. No. 20,867, ‘Desirable’ (unpatented), ‘Gafford’             (unpatented), and ‘Pawnee’ (unpatented). It would pollinate             ‘Desirable’, ‘Gafford’, and ‘Pawnee’. The stigma is small,             upright with small lobes, and light green (RHS 145B) in             color (FIG. 2).         -   Nut in shuck.—Topography is smooth and shuck texture is             rough (FIG. 3). Shuck suture wings are relatively small             (2-3mm in height). Typically only 1 shuck has a russet             stripe which runs from the base to the apex and is 1.5-2.0             mm in thickness. Shuck color is whitish green (RHS 146C) and             is lighter in color than most cultivars. Shuck apex is             obtuse. Light shuck color and rough texture are the most             useful identification traits for this cultivar.         -   Dry nut.—Nut shells have moderate shell striping which             extends from the apex to the equator (FIG. 3). Dots are             small and present from base to apex. Nut shape is oblong             with a cuspidate base and an acute, grooved apex. Nuts are             round in cross section. Shell topography is slightly bumpy             with ridges from the base to the apex. Shell thickness is             medium and 0.8-1.0 mm thick at the equator. -   Comparisons to other varieties:     -   -   Scab resistance.—‘Ga. 00-7-75’ has shown very strong             resistance to pecan scab in replicated tests. Trees have             been grown in a sprayed orchard at Tifton, Ga. since 2009,             and at Ray City, Ga. since 2012 and no scab infection has             been observed on any of these trees on leaves or nuts             (Tables 1, 2). In comparison, susceptible cultivars like             ‘Desirable’ and ‘Byrd’ had significant scab infection. High             pressure, unsprayed trials were conducted at Tifton, Ga. and             in these trials only slight scab was seen on a few nuts             (Table 3). This disease incidence was not different from the             highly resistant controls (‘Elliott’ (unpatented),             ‘Gafford’, and ‘McMillan’ (unpatented)), and was better than             moderately resistant controls (‘Sumner’ (unpatented) and             ‘Zinner’ (unpatented)). Susceptible controls such as             ‘Cunard’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 24,373), ‘Desirable’, ‘Pawnee’             and ‘Stuart’ (unpatented) experienced crop failure and             defoliation each year due to scab infection. Young trees             were also planted in unsprayed scab screening orchards in             Attapulgus, Ga. and Albany, Ga. While they have not fruited             yet, leaf scab resistance of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ was similar to             resistant controls and better than susceptible controls             (Tables 3, 4, 5).         -   Production.—To evaluate yield, ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ was topworked             into a bearing orchard at a farm in Tift County, Ga. Using             this method, ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ appears to be a good yielding             tree with yields steadily increasing each year (Table 6).             Cluster size of ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is 2.6, which is similar to             other cultivars with stable bearing habits (‘Desirable’,             ‘Stuart’, and ‘Zinner’) and less than alternating cultivars             that need crop thinning (‘Byrd’, ‘McMillan’, ‘Pawnee’, and             ‘Sumner’). Moderate cluster size, along with the mother             tree's consistent cropping record (9 years with 50% or more             of a crop), indicate that ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ will not need to be             crop thinned.         -   Nut quality.—Nut size (9.9 g) and percent kernel (53.7%)             fall within the range needed for optimum prices in the             current market (Table 7). Shellers generally want nut size             to be larger than 9 g and more than 52% kernel for shipping             to the Chinese market. ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ has similar size to             ‘Desirable’ and a higher percent kernel (Table 7).             Additionally, ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ has little incidence of packing             material sticking to the kernel and highly attractive             kernels (Table 7).         -   Adaptation.—‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is late to break bud in the spring             (Table 8) which indicates some measure of frost avoidance if             planted in the northern part of Georgia. For many years             ‘Stuart’ was recommended for north Georgia, and budbreak of             ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ is similar to ‘Stuart’. Harvest date is almost             a week ahead of ‘Desirable’ (Table 8) which puts it in the             early mid-season harvest period. This would make ‘Ga.             00-7-75’ among the first cultivars to be harvested, but not             so early that extra protection from predators like crows             would be necessary. ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ has medium susceptibility             to black pecan aphid (Melanocallis caryaefoliae) which may             require sprays in some years, but susceptibility is less             than other widely grown cultivars such as ‘Zinner’ and             ‘Stuart’ (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4).

TABLE 1 Pest resistance of pecan cultivars and selections in a sprayed orchard over years 2009-2015 at Tifton, GA. Of the varieties other than ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ in Table 1, only ‘Byrd’ (U.S. PP20,867) is patented. Avg. Max. Black aphid Cultivar # Trees Leaf scab^(Z) nut scab^(Y) nut scab^(X) damage^(W) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 6 1.0 b^(V) 1.0 b 1.0 d 2.3 bc ‘Byrd’ 5 1.1 b  1.3 b 2.9 b 1.5 d  ‘Desirable’ 6 3.7 a  3.4 a 4.6 a 2.2 bc ‘Gafford’ 4 1.0 b  1.0 b 1.0 d 1.0 e  ‘McMillan’ 5 1.0 b  1.0 b 1.1 d 1.6 d  ‘Pawnee’ 3 1.2 b  1.0 b 1.9 c 1.7 d  ‘Stuart’ 5 1.0 b  1.1 b 3.1 b 2.6 b  ‘Sumner’ 4 1.3 b  1.0 b 1.1 d 2.1 c  ‘Zinner’ 6 1.3 b  1.1 b 2.9 b 3.1 a  Sig. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 ^(Z)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few isolated lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions with expanding lesions, 4 =stem scab lesions or defoliation. ^(Y)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 =51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Average damage seen on nuts over the tree. ^(X)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 =51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Maximum damage seen on any nut. ^(W)1 = no damage, 2 = light chlorotic spotting, 0% to 25% leaves affected, 3 = moderate chlorotic spotting, 26% to 75% chlorotic spotting, 4 = heavy chlorotic spotting, 76% to 100% leaves affected. ^(V)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

Pest resistance of pecan cultivars and selections in a sprayed orchard over years 2012-2015 at Ray City, GA. ‘Amling’, ‘Desirable’, ‘Elliot’, ‘McMillan’ and ‘Zinner’ are all unpatented. Avg. Max. Black aphid Cultivar # Trees Leaf scab^(Z) nut scab^(Y) nut scab^(X) damage^(W) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 6 1.0 b^(V) 1.0 b 1.0 c 1.0 b ‘Amling’ 6 1.0 b  1.0 b 1.0 c 1.0 b ‘Desirable’ 6 3.5 a  3.8 a 4.9 a 1.0 b ‘Elliott’ 6 1.0 b  1.0 b 1.0 c 1.0 b ‘McMillan’ 6 1.0 b  1.0 b 1.0 c 1.0 b ‘Zinner’ 6 1.0 b  1.2 b 2.2 b 1.3 a Sig. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 ^(Z)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few isolated lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions with expanding lesions, 4 = stem scab lesions or defoliation. ^(Y)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 = 51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Average damage seen on nuts over the tree. ^(X)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 = 51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Maximum damage seen on any nut. ^(W)1 = no damage, 2 = light chlorotic spotting, 0% to 25% leaves affected, 3 = moderate chlorotic spotting, 26% to 75% chlorotic spotting, 4 = heavy chlorotic spotting, 76% to 100% leaves affected. ^(Y)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 3 Pest resistance of pecan cultivars and selections in an unsprayed orchard over years 2012-2015 at Tifton, GA. Of the varieties other than 'Ga. 00-7-75' in Table 3, only 'Cunard' (U.S. PP24,373) is patented. Avg. Max. Black aphid Cultivar # Trees Leaf scab^(Z) nut scab^(Y) nut scab^(X) damage^(W) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 3 1.0 c^(V) 1.0 c 1.3 c 2.6 bc  ‘Cunard’ 1 3.3 ab 4.7 a 5.0 a 2.3 bc  ‘Desirable’ 1 4.0 a  5.0 a 5.0 a 2.5 bc  ‘Elliott’ 1 1.0 c  1.0 c 1.0 c 2.3 c  ‘Gafford’ 1 1.0 c  1.0 c 1.0 c 2.0 c  ‘McMillan’ 1 1.0 c  1.0 c 1.5 c 2.0 c  ‘Pawnee’ 1 2.3 bc 5.0 a 5.0 a 2.8 abc ‘Stuart’ 1 2.5 bc 5.0 a 4.3 a 3.8 a  ‘Sumner’ 2 2.1 bc 2.0 b 3.0 b 2.7 bc  ‘Zinner’ 2 2.1 bc 4.5 a 4.0 a 3.4 ab  Sig. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.007 ^(Z)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few isolated lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions with expanding lesions, 4 = stem scab lesions or defoliation. ^(Y)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 = 51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Average damage seen on nuts over the tree. ^(X)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions, 0% to 10% coverage, 4 = 11% to 50% coverage, 5 = 51% to 100% coverage or nut drop. Maximum damage seen on any nut. ^(W)1 = no damage, 2 = light chlorotic spotting, 0% to 25% leaves affected, 3 = moderate chlorotic spotting, 26% to 75% chlorotic spotting, 4 = heavy chlorotic spotting, 76% to 100% leaves affected. ^(V)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05. Years were treated as reps.

TABLE 4 Pest resistance of pecan cultivars and selections in an unsprayed orchard over years 2012-2015 at Albany, GA. The patent status of the varieties in Table 4 has been set forth above. Cultivar # Trees Leaf scab^(Z) Black aphid damage^(Y) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 3 1.3 b^(X) 2.2 ‘Byrd’ 2 4.0 a  1.6 ‘Cunard’ 2 4.0 a  2.0 ‘Desirable’ 3 4.0 a  2.4 ‘Elliott’ 3 1.0 b  1.4 ‘Sumner’ 3 1.7 b  1.9 Sig. 0.001 NS ^(Z)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few isolated lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions with expanding lesions, 4 = stem scab lesions or defoliation. ^(Y)1 = no damage, 2 = light chlorotic spotting, 0% to 25% leaves affected, 3 = moderate chlorotic spotting, 26% to 75% chlorotic spotting, 4 = heavy chlorotic spotting, 76% to 100% leaves affected. ^(X)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 5 Pest resistance of pecan cultivars and selections in an unsprayed orchard over years 2012-2015 at Attapulgus, GA. The patent status of the varieties in Table 5 has been set forth above. Cultivar # Trees Leaf scab^(Z) Black aphid damage^(Y) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 3 1.3 c^(X) 2.0 ‘Desirable’ 3 4.0 a  2.2 ‘Elliott’ 3 1.5 c  2.1 ‘Stuart’ 3 3.3 b  2.6 Sig. 0.001 NS ^(Z)1 = no scab lesions, 2 = a few isolated lesions with restricted growth, 3 = multiple lesions with expanding lesions, 4 = stem scab lesions or defoliation. ^(Y)1 = no damage, 2 = light chlorotic spotting, 0% to 25% leaves affected, 3 = moderate chlorotic spotting, 26% to 75% chlorotic spotting, 4 = heavy chlorotic spotting, 76% to 100% leaves affected. ^(X)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 6 In-shell nut yield (lbs. per tree) of pecan cultivars in Tifton, GA., years 7-10 from planting. The patent status of the varieties in Table 6 has been set forth above. Cultivar # Trees Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 ‘Ga. 00-7-75^(Z’) 6 17.3 24.7 b^(Y) 47.2 ab 77.7 b ‘Byrd’ 5 42.0 46.4 a  49.7 ab 106.5 a ‘Desirable’ 4 15.9 28.5 ab 29.5 b  36.5 c ‘Gafford’ 4 26.7 40.0 ab 30.8 b  62.5 b ‘Pawnee’ 3 15.7 19.3 b  57.0 ab 12.0 c ‘Sumner’ 4 26.8 25.3 b  69.8 a  33.2 c Sig. NS 0.045 0.04 0.001 ^(Z’)Ga. 00-7-75’ was topworked into the orchard and when yields were similar to year 7 yields they were considered to be 7 years old. ^(Y)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 7 Nut and kernel quality attributes of pecan cultivars averaged over all years of testing at Tifton, GA. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 11 crops were evaluated for each tree. The patent status of the varieties in Table 7 has been set forth above. #Nuts Nut # per weight % Kernel Cultivar Trees cluster (g) % Kernel Fuzz^(Z) rating^(Y) ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 6 2.6 b^(X) 9.9 c  53.7 c  0.0 d 4.8 a  ‘Byrd’ 5 3.5 a  9.4 c  58.0 a  1.0 d 4.3 b  ‘Desirable’ 6 2.4 b  9.9 c  50.9 de 2.3 c 3.6 c  ‘Gafford’ 4 2.7 b  9.3 bc 50.2 e  3.8 b 3.7 c  ‘McMillan’ 5 3.3 a  8.9 ab 51.4 de 0.3 d 3.6 c  ‘Pawnee’ 3 3.5 a  9.9 c  57.2 ab 0.0 d 3.9 bc ‘Stuart’ 5 2.6 b  9.6 c  45.4 f  7.7 a 2.2 d  ‘Sumner’ 4 3.6 a  8.4 a  52.0 d  2.4 c 3.8 c  ‘Zinner’ 6 2.6 b  9.9 c  56.4 b  0.2 d 4.9 a  Sig. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 ^(Z)Estimated percentage of the kernel surface covered with packing material. ^(Y)Attractiveness rating of the pecan kernels with 5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Average, 2 = Poor, 1 = Terrible. Ratings are based on kernel color, size, fill, shelling ability, and lack of defects. ^(X)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05.

Table 8 Phenology and number of nuts per cluster of pecan cultivars in Tifton, GA., 2008-2015. The patent status of the varieties in Table 8 has been set forth above. #Nuts per 50% Shuck Cultivar #Trees Bud burst date cluster split date ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ 6  6-Apr a^(Z) 2.6 b  4-Oct c  ‘Byrd’ 5 26-Mar d  3.5 a 18-Sep d  ‘Desirable’ 6 30-Mar c  2.4 b 10-Oct ab ‘Gafford’ 4  6-Apr a  2.7 b 10-Oct ab ‘McMillan’ 5 31-Mar bc 3.3 a  6-Oct bc ‘Pawnee’ 3 31-Mar bc 3.5 a  9-Sep e  ‘Stuart’ 5  3-Apr ab 2.6 b 11-Oct a  ‘Sumner’ 4 31-Mar bc 3.6 a  9-Oct b  ‘Zinner’ 6  1-Apr bc 2.6 b  5-Oct c  Sig. 0.001 0.001 0.001 ^(Z)Mean separation within a column by Duncan's multiple range test, P ≤ 0.05. The ‘Ga. 00-7-75’ pecan tree is therefore an improved new and distinct pecan. 

I claim:
 1. A new and distinct cultivar of pecan tree, as herein illustrated and described. 